Steven Carr

In Luke 4:27, Jesus says 'There were also many lepers in Israel at the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.'

The Old Testament is silent about other cures from leprosy at the time of Elisha.

Can arguments from silence ever be valid?

Gregg

Not sure I understand your point. Is this in reference to the MJ thesis?

If so, a couple of things to keep in mind;

1. The argument from silence is only part of the MJ thesis.
2. The MJ thesis documents "positive" silences, in which an earthly ministry for Jesus is excluded from the picture.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think you'll have to elaborate. I can't quite grasp what sort of argument from silence you're suggesting could be made from what you've referenced.

burlo

Can arguments from silence ever be valid?

Yes. Just because you didn't hear the tree fall in the woods doesn't mean none fell?

Steven Carr

Arguments from silence can be valid, but that Biblical passage is a classic example of a really bad argument from silence.

So perhaps Jesus wasn't such a great philosopher after all.

TedM

You are assuming four things here:

1. Jesus based his comment exclusively on his
knowledge of the OT
2. The OT didn't necessarily mention everyone who was cured of leprosy during Elisha's time
3. That Jesus was not discussing the matter with an
implied understanding among his listeners that he was basing the comment only OT tradition
4. The OT does not specifically make the same
statement as what Jesus made

#1 is not provable
#2 is not provable
#3 is not provable
#4 is provable--just read the entire OT and see if
such a statement is repeated in it

The above example helps to illustrate that one of the problems with arguing AGAINST an argument from silence MAY BE in the assumptions that go into such argument.

As for the validity of an argument from silence, off
the top of my head I'd say that the issue is one of
expectation. If it can be shown that silence in a
given context should not be strongly expected, and
such silence exists, then one can make a good argument from silence.

mountainman

I the article Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002)
Richard Carrier discusses "The Argument from Silence" in context with
"The Argument to the Best Explanation".

IMO arguments from silence are not
especially historically proactive.

If we accept with Acton that:
"Truth is the only merit that gives
dignity and worth to history",
then perhaps we would be hoping that
one day there will exist a theory
of best explanation which matches
the reality of bygone epochs as
best as we can determine things
with all available resources.
Such a theory will IMO not proceed
from an argument of silence as a basis.

Perhaps we could say arguments from silence
will always have a limited validity when compared
to the potential validity of an Argument to the
Best Explanation.

Steven Carr

A pretty safe assumption.


Where does the OT say 'And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, yet none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian'?

TedM

Depends on your perspective about what Jesus knew or didn't know.


I doubt it does. If you don't know though, you are assuming it doesn't say that. This one, unlike the other 3 can be tested.

take care,

ted

Ben C Smith

In Luke 4.27 Jesus made an argument from silence. That argument from silence was not a very good one in logical terms. In rhetorical terms, it was quite effective, and at least the OT does not openly contradict the argument.

On this very forum you made an argument from silence not so very long ago. You argued that, had Paul known a dominical saying proving a resurrection he would have used it in 1 Corinthians 15. You failed to notice that Paul did know a dominical saying proving a resurrection and used it in 1 Thessalonians 4.15. Like the argument that Jesus made, your argument from silence was not a very good one in logical terms. Unlike the argument that Jesus made, your argument was not even effective in rhetorical terms, and it was openly contradicted by the Pauline epistles.

Is the argument from silence ever valid? Occasionally. But not very often.

Ben.